Now that you have taught your first inquiry science lesson, take a moment to reflect on the experience.
What were your lesson goals, both in terms of content and process skills? What strategy did you use to help students reveal and reflect on their own science ideas? What patterns did you observe in students' science ideas, writings, or drawings? Were any ideas particularly difficult or easy for students? Why was this? In what areas did students' science understandings grow? If you were going to teach a follow-up lesson to this one, what would it be and why? What question do you still have about teaching science?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
This lesson was taught by Brittany and Jeff.
Our goal for the lesson was to assess students knowledge of the notion of gravity and to build upon that or create new knowledge. We wanted students to recognize that without air resistance, gravity affects all objects on Earth and affects them equally regardless of mass. The processes they used to explore these concepts involved first-hand experimentation using two objects with different masses and building a way to determine which of the objects would fall faster or if they would fall at the same time. Students gain a clearer concept of how much gravity really does affect us and how it affects us.
To begin, we asked open-ended discussion questions to the class. Questions included literal questions such as "If I throw this ball in the air will it come down?" and inferential questions like "Why do you think the ball falls?" Students were also asked to predict whether a bowling ball or a marble, when dropped at the same time from the same place, would hit the ground at the same time or would land at different times. Why did they make the prediction that they did? Student responses came in a very wide range of reasoning, and many demonstrated in-depth cognitive processes in arriving at their conclusions. Students definitely had many different perceptions of gravity and how it acts on different objects. Though many students predicted that the two objects would land at the same time, many guessed that the heavier object would land first. Overall, students did well at making a prediction and using information to back it up.
Some students had a little trouble with the idea that a much heavier object will fall at the same rate as a lighter object. This is understandable as it is a difficult concept to grasp. Through the experimentation, most students saw for themselves that the objects (golf ball and ping pong ball) landed at the same time, but a discussion was held as to why some students may have seen the heavier ball fall first (methodological error).
Following the weight vs. gravity experiment, we demonstrated to students that air resistance is solely responsible for the slow descent of a sheet of paper. This demonstration was easier for students to understand, and also helped to enhance their knowledge of gravity vs. weight and why a ping pong ball may fall more slowly that a golf ball in some environments. Overall, students came out with a much deeper and more holistic understanding of gravity. The lesson was also an opportunity for them to practice and develop their inquiry skills and exploration strategies.
A follow up to this lesson would most likely include discussion and experimentation dealing with the whether or not air affects gravity. In this first lesson, we saw how air resistance affects an objects speed and rate of acceleration. The follow up lesson would further develop the idea that air is not needed for gravity to hold us down and that without air resistance, all objects fall at the same rate. Such a lesson would enhance the students' prior knowledge of gravity from the first lesson, then build new knowledge of a different aspect of gravity's relationship with the environment.
The question that we still have about teaching science can be applicable to all subject areas. What do you do when students do not find the desired results in their experimentation. If a student gets results that shouldn't technically have occured, how do you help them to understand why their results aren't necessarily the norm and what they should have found. Students ideas can be greatly affected by their experiments, and when an experiment goes wrong, it can be very hard to reverse the effects of that experience.
This is Sarah Schuelke and Heather VanGelder.
The goals that we had for our lesson were that the students would gain an understanding that 3 ice cubes have the same mass as 3 melted ice cubes, showing them that a change in a material's state doesn't result in a loss of mass. For process skills, the students would have the opportunity to make predictions about what would happen when the bag of ice and the bag of water were placed on the scale and then they were able to actually place them on the scale.
The strategy that we used to help the students start thinking about their own science ideas was in a whole class setting and we would just pose a question and the students (in pairs) would think about it and chat for a moment with their partner and then they would share with the whole class. It was very similar to think-pair-share, but a little bit more of a whole class question and answer. All of the students except for 1 or 2 thought that the water would be heavier on the scale. The pattern we saw with this was that many of the students were getting caught up with the idea that the ice cubes had air bubbles in them so that is why they would be lighter. There was also a pattern of the whole class typically agreeing with each other instead of having a large split of conflicting ideas. This may have changed if we would have had the students write down their responses to the questions instead of using the sharing experience that we did.
Unfortunately our class experiment didn't go as planned. So this made explaining the science very difficult for us and even more difficult for the students to comprehend because they had just seen a science experiment "prove" their theories correct even though that isn't what should have happened. However, given our circumstances I think we handled the situation well. We thought on our feet and gave the students a mini-lesson about “What Went Wrong?” and had a very thoughtful discussion about why our experiment didn’t go as we thought it was supposed to. The students had such great insight into needed 100% consistent variables and equipment that worked 100% of the time. I believe they actually learned more about science through an unfortunate event than they would have if everything would have gone according to plan. This is true also because we were able to explain what should have happened with the ice and water by using apples and apples cut up as well as deflated balloons and filled up balloons to show and reinforce the idea we were trying to teach. Student understandings about consistent variables and what actually goes into performing a solid science experiment grew as well as their knowledge about a change in the state of matter doesn’t cause it to lose mass due to the of conversation of total matter. If we were to teach a follow up lesson it would make the most sense to actually do a very similar lesson about the conservation of matter and use more precise scales and have other types of materials so that the students could really investigate that what we told them about matter conservation was true. After that we might move on to how materials lose matter and what types of situation causes a material to decrease in mass or increase in mass. We are still curious what the best approach to teaching science is. Specifically, when doing predictions and testing an experiment is it better to work individually, pairs, small group or whole class? We just noticed that working basically as a whole class, they really just went along with the rest of the class when it came to their personal predictions about what they thought would happen.
This lesson was taught by Erica Foreman and Lindsey Lewis.
Our science lesson was on states of matter and changes of states of matter. Our main focus was to assess the students understanding of the content covered which was characteristics of the states of matter and the changes of properties in matter. The process skills the students demonstrated were using inquiry to determine which state of matter various objects belonged to. Students also had to use evidence to justify their explanations. We used an assessment probe to have students reveal and reflect on their science ideas and understandings. We noticed that most students had a firm grasp on what determined an objects state of matter, due to the fact that they had previously been working on this with Mrs. Westrom. The concept of changes of state, such as evaporation and condensation, was a more challenging idea for most students. This concept was fairly new to the students and they had less experience with it. Students' science understandings seemed to grow when we introduced "oobleck". The fact that "oobleck" has properties of both a solid and a liquid, forced students to expand their thinking and realize that not all objects fit perfectly into a state of matter. Students were also required to pick which state they thought "oobleck" belonged to and explain why. Many of the students' responses to this writing assignment were "both", this shows that the students expanded their thinking on the states of matter. If we taught a follow-up lesson we would focus mainly on the changes of states of matter. We would go more in-depth on evaporation, condensation, freezing, boiling, and melting points. We would teach this because it seemed to be a difficult concept and they needed more time to grasp it. How do you make sure that every student is expressing their own ideas/ thoughts about a concept during a inquiry based lesson?
The goal for our lesson was to have students understand and support with evidence that not all things fit into just one of the states of matter. For our lesson we used "oobleck" to help students understand this. Before the students were allowed to explore their oobleck, they had to write in their science journals about what state of matter they believed oobleck was and explain how they came to their conclusion. After we past out to each group their own oobleck, we let the students explore and think about the predictions they made. At the end of the lesson, students had to write in their journals again to see if they thought their prediction was right or wrong and why? All of the students had great ideas and supporting evidence for their choice. students' science understandings really grew when we introduced the science concept of what oobleck actually was, which is a non-Newtonian fluid. Students had no problem identifying the states of matter and if we were to do a follow up lesson I think that we would focus on melting, boiling, and freezing points after talking to Ms. McGill. My question that I still have about teaching science, but could be applied to all subject areas is how do make sure that all students are making individual predictions when they are working in pairs(as in our lesson) or small groups?
This lesson was taught by Erin M. and Erin C. The goal of our lesson was to review the properties of solids and liquids, as well as introducing the concept of Non-Newtonian fluids. Students worked with Oobleck, a Non-Newtonian fluid. Processes used included predicting their ideas in writing, experimenting and testing their ideas with a partner, and finally reporting back their findings and idea.
First, we asked predicting questions such as "what do you think will happen if I try to pour this substance?" and "If I apply a lot of pressure what will happen?". Then they had to explain "How did you conclude this?". Students wrote their predictions down, and then with a partner tested their predictions and explored with Oobleck. Then at the end of the lesson we came together to discuss results, and students answered the question "Is it a solid or a liquid" using the properties of solid or liquids as justification.
Overall I think the lesson went well. When we collected the written responses, their predictions included reasoning, and their final conclusions included proof. The experiment was great in that students were able to see the odd properties of Oobleck (it has both solid and liquid properties) and the created their own way of testing. At the end of the experiment the class dictated to me, as I wrote on the board, whether their team thought it was a solid or a liquid and their reasons why. The only challenging part of the lesson was clean up, as Oobleck is kind of messy. Other than that, I thought all went well and I would do it again. If I were to do it again, I feel more individual time for students to write their conclusions about Oobleck, and time to write a description of a Non-Newtonian fluid based on their findings in their own words.
Everyone that did your lesson, you all had really great ideas. This post is mainly to make sure that I don't get kicked off for not posting. Brooke and I have not taught our lesson yet but when we do (next week) expect to hear all about it.
This lesson was taught by Brooke and Michelle. Our goal was to help children understand yeast is a living organism that makes bread rise, and some breads don't rise because they have no yeast.
To start off we made bread dough as a class and listed the ingredients on the board in a venn diagram. We allowed the students to make observations and predictions of what will happen when we cook the dough. Then we did the same thing with the pie crust. The children compared the two recipes and found similarities and differences. We revelaed a loaf of bread and a pie and allowed the class to make educated guesses on why the bread rose. We planned on explaining that yeast is a living organism but two students already knew and explained the concept to the class. Using the smart board and a microscope camera we demonstrated the effects water has on yeast versus water yeast and sugar. This allowed students to visualize the concept. As a bonus the class ate the pie and bread along with tea as we read the book You Wouldn’t Want to be at the Boston Tea Party! Wharf Water Tea You’d Rather Not Drink. We chose this book because it related their studies on the Revolutionary War and the foods from that era. We feel the lesson went really well. The class enjoed the activites while gaining knowldege on the history of the Revolutionary War as well as yeasts role in baking.
I would like to make a suggestion to Erin Cases question; how do you make sure that all students are making individual predictions when they are working in pairs or in small groups? My suggestion to this would be Think, Pair, and Share. First give students a little time to work and think by themselves, and then have students move into pairs and discuss their thoughts together. Last I would have students move into small groups and compare and share their final answers or thoughts with the class. I think this method would make sure that every student was involved in answering a question for themselves, a key element in inquiry according to the article.
I think I could use the Understanding Place Based Education, or the PlaceNames Project curriculum in my current sixth grade field placement. I think the students are capable of fulfilling the curriculum's expectations. I feel students at this age have an OK sense of place already and with this curriculum it could be deepened, I also think they would take great interest in this curriculum. I would try to incorporate as much outdoor and environmental education into the curriculum as I could. I would really like the students to learn about the animal and plant life cycles of Montana. I would also like the students to learn how to be more ecologically aware of their surroundings.
Ryan Dunham and Harmony Lesch
Our lesson goals included having students learn about the effects of excessive carbon dioxide on our planet and successfuly reproducing the effects in an experiment. To have our students reveal/reflect on their science ideas they constructed (in groups of 5) charts describing their background knowledge and inquiries about the subject of global warming. Each group stated that the polar ice caps and glaciers would melt away as a result of global warming which would also negatively impact the local wildlife. Nearly every group mentioned that it is caused (at least partially) by humans. Our science lesson seemed to be neither too difficult or easy. The students were engaged throughout the lesson plan and were able to follow the experiment. I think this was due to the students excitement about the subject and the opportunity to use atmosphere simulators. At the end of the lesson we tied together the effects of carbon dioxide on the planet and the role that humans are playing in this matter. Students also did a homework assignment in which they interviewed an adult regarding the changes they have seen as a result of global warming in their lifetime. The second part of their homework included taking a personal survey on their carbon footprint. If we were to teach a follow up lesson we would like to focus on the three R's (reduce, reuse, and recycle). This is one of the easiest ways that we can start to make positive changes in the impact we are having on our planet. A question that we both have about teaching science is going to be posted in about 2 hours.
Ryan Dunham and Harmony Lesch
A question that we both have about teaching Science is whether or not it is as valuable to the students to have the teacher perform an experiment for them while they observe as it is having the students perform it themselves? We were curious about this as in our lesson we found that a good number of students absolutely could not resist the urge to touch the atomosphere simulators, which we asked them numerous times to NOT touch. This was a cause for some variation in their results so this was what caused us to ask this question.
This lesson was taught by Noah and Brooke. Our lesson was titled "Water Olympics." Our goal was for students to understand the concepts of adhesion, cohesion, and surface tension through severeal different hands-on activities. It was important for them to understand the difference between these so we could do the activities. The students have a background knowledge of some water properties such as, precipitation, condensation, and evaporation.
We introduced the topic by explaining the prefixes ad and co. Prefix ad like adhesion, addition, and adhere mean the molecules want to ad themselves to something else. Co includes, co-worker, co-mate, cooperate, all mean work together and want to stay together. With this we moved into the adhesion and cohesion properties of water. We showed a picture of a water skipper on water and how it stays on the surface of the water through cohesion. We explained with the help of a picture of water separating on glass, this is properties of adhesion. The students seemed to comprehend these concepts after our intro so, we felt comfortable explaining our activies.
Our activities included Paperclip balance beam(make the clip float on the water), Papertowel Aborption race(see which papertowel absorbs the water fastest), Bubble Rings(how many drops of water stay on penny before rolling off), and Penny Pusher(how many pennies can you get in a full glass of water before over flowing). We gave just a brief discription of of how to do each activity with out demonstrating it.
Each group of 4 was given a science journal to record their findings, make obersevations, and state their predictions. Students were really involved and interested. It was interesting to hear them make predictions and watch their results. We thought it was really cool watchign the students grasp the concepts through these activities.
Unfortunately we ran out of time and were cut short on our assessment. After discussing the lesson with our cooperating teacher a few things that we would do differently include; Explain one activity at a time and have them complete that before moving on to the next. Also, making sure to have enough time to assess at the end.
Before the start of the lesson we discussed what the students understood about global warming. Although they had heard of it their knowlege on the subject was minimal. The students knew that humans were a primary reason for the increase of the temperature on the Earth but not the scientific reasons why. The students patterns of understanding following the lesson were that it is the dramatic increase in levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by our consumption of fossil fuels. The students now understand how excessive carbon dioxide 'traps' heat/energy within our atmosphere which in turn increases the overall average temperature on the Earth. The evidence of this new understanding for students is demonstrated in their graphs from the experiment where the increase in temperature is clearly recorded. Students now also understand that they themselves are contributing to global warming and that there are decisions they can make to reduce their impact. By interviewing an older adult students were able to get a first-hand account of the changes that have occured in recent times (the past 50 years or so).
Michelle amd Brooke
Our content goal was that students will understand that bread needs yeast to rise and our process goal was to help students understand how yeast makes bread rise. The strategies used to help develop scientific thoughts were inquiry, observations, predictions, developing a hypothesis, and comparing the differences and similarities between the bread dough and the pie crust. We noticed that the students who already knew the concept were open to explaining the concepts to the class while the other students listened attentively. The students who didn’t have previous knowledge couldn’t predict the different outcomes between the two samples. The concept that was the most difficult for the students was understanding that yeast is a live organism/fungus. Since the students couldn’t see the yeast moving they had a hard time grasping the concept. Their knowledge of life science grew as they explored the impact sugar had on yeast. If we taught a follow up lesson we would do more of a hand on approach on yeast and also we would bake the bread and pie crust so they could see the actions yeast takes.
The main question we still have is how do you change a lesson in a textbook to include the 5 E’s.?
Post a Comment